Law enforcement can be a complex and dangerous business. Police officers and security personnel must take into account various, and sometimes conflicting, considerations of personal safety, observing proper police procedures, and treating perpetrators or suspects fairly. In an effort to aid the tasks of the law enforcement professional and to lower police misconduct, the installation of video cameras in law enforcement vehicles entered into the fray. Video cameras are used to capture live encounters with perpetrators or suspects as well as to capture a police officer's actions during his employment. Because these video cameras catch live video of incidents, there is little one can do to dispute their veracity. As a result, the use of these cameras has reduced the number of claims against police officers, reduced the number of suspects that fight charges in court, increased the conviction rate on charges and lowers the number of incidents of police misconduct. In-vehicle video cameras, however, do not come without their drawbacks.
First, in-vehicle video cameras typically mounted on the front dashboard of a car and face forward. This works for capturing video of a vehicle chase or any incidents that occur in front of the camera, i.e., in front of the vehicle. However, this placement does not allow for the capturing of incidents that happen behind the vehicle or on the side of the vehicle. Furthermore, if a foot chase ensues beyond the area of the vehicle or the police officer enters a building or other structure, the in-vehicle video camera cannot capture any relevant video of an incident that occurs between the police officer and the suspect.
Second, the activation (and deactivation) of the recording of video by in-vehicle video cameras can be problematic. Police officers often forget to command the video system to start recording, thereby negating any benefit of the video system itself. Additionally, recording trigger mechanisms (as well as mechanisms for stopping the recording function) can be cumbersome and difficult to use, thereby enabling police officers to forgo using the trigger mechanism when engaged in a task requiring intense concentration.
Currently, the trend is to make electronic devices smaller and smaller. This enables ease of use and lessens the load and annoyance on consumers. For law enforcement, smaller devices are especially desirable, as officers must maintain a high level of agility and dexterity when performing their jobs. But smaller devices give rise to a new set of problems. For example, automatic activation and deactivation of recording functions are desirable because audio/video storage space on a small mechanism must be conserved. Also, the battery life of the power source used to power the recording function must be preserved in order to allow for prolonged use without a battery change or a battery charge. Furthermore, automatic activation and deactivation of recording functions reduces the total amount of audio/video that is recorded, which in turn reduces the amount of audio/video that must be reviewed when a pertinent incident must be investigated.
Third, in-vehicle video systems typically capture video and audio information, but fail to capture other types of crucial information such as the location of the vehicle or police officer, personal information of the police officer, such as heart rate or other vital statistics, and situational information, such as still image data, speed data and acceleration data. This additional information can aid in determining when to start recording audio and/or video information and can aid in analyzing an incident captured on video.
Therefore, there is a need to overcome problems with the prior art as discussed above, and more particularly a need to make the process of automatically recording multiple types of information.